SMT. KUMKUM ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by rejection of her claim application under Sec. 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereafter the 1989 Act) registered as Claim Application No. U/722/2005 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata vide judgment and order dated April 24, 2012, the claimant as appellant has preferred this appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

(2.) It was pleaded in the claim application that the husband of the claimant/appellant (hereafter the victim) while travelling in a local train accidentally fell down, suffered multiple injuries and died instantaneously. As such, she claimed Rs. 4 lakh on account of compensation.

(3.) At the trial, the claimant/appellant and one Samir Mukherjee, alleged co-passenger of the victim, adduced evidence as PWs 1 and 2 respectively. None adduced evidence on behalf of the railway, the respondent in the claim application. Upon consideration of the evidence led in course of the trial, the tribunal doubted that the victim was a passenger. The reason was no railway ticket was found on his person. Disbelieving the version of the claimant/appellant, it proceeded to return a finding that the victim did not die as a result of any accidental fall from a moving train but may have been run over. It was finally held that the claim not being covered by 'untoward incident' as defined in section 123(c) of the 1989 Act, the claimant/appellant was not entitled to any compensation.